Josh Gattis (before its deleted)

[cway313]

Pretty sure Gattis is a volunteer sheriff's deputy.View attachment 226658

 

[cway313]

Isn’t that the young lady who the police dept ran thru?

Yea she served.

 

[Yoyo82]

Correct, can't be fired for "cause" for just being bad at your job.

It's a fine line.

I'd say being bad at your job AND not trying to improve when confronted would qualify as "for cause".

Maybe following up with certain number of recruits on a weekly basis is a written job expectation that he agreed to and didn't do.

If UM has documented proof of multiple conversations intended to correct such behavior, and no changes were made by him, that could be enough to be fired with cause/for performance and not be liable for damages/wrongful termination.

 

[Dees Brown]

Yea she served.

Definition of public servant.

 

[BS85]

Did someone leaving the athletic department earlier in the year have anything to do with this whole Gattis situation?

 

[Odysseus]

 

[Baba Yaga]

Did someone leaving the athletic department earlier in the year have anything to do with this whole Gattis situation?

 

[BS85]

Not Ponce lmao

 

[TheEye]

Josh Gattis

 

[Odysseus]

Better get that OC hot board ready

 

[Baba Yaga]

Not Ponce lmao

Lol, I know who you mean and I don't want it to be true.

 

[Fluffhead]

Usually it has to be more serious than being bad at the job. It’s often a morality clause issue like Sark, or Matt Weiss at Michigan.

If I were Miami and “heard” about a coach possibly sleeping a recruits mother at a previous gig, and I was about to pay him $1.8m, I would very well make sure that part of the morality clause was extra broad.

 

[Problem2]

Did someone leaving the athletic department earlier in the year have anything to do with this whole Gattis situation?

Decision Respected

 

[BeltzaCane]

Can’t wait for the Twitter rumors trying to piggyback off Cribs…


…they going to be wild

He’s the goat for a reason

 

[jme231]

It's a fine line.

I'd say being bad at your job AND not trying to improve when confronted would qualify as "for cause".

Maybe following up with certain number of recruits on a weekly basis is a written job expectation that he agreed to and didn't do.

If UM has documented proof of multiple conversations intended to correct such behavior, and no changes were made by him, that could be enough to be fired with cause/for performance and not be liable for damages/wrongful termination.

That’s not true. For cause is really difficult

 

[Squid Bumciorek]

That’s not true. For cause is really difficult

Cristobal: "Josh, I'm firing you for cause, so you don't get the rest of your salary."
Gattis: "Oh really? What's the cause?"
Cristobal: "'Cause' you suck at your job."

 

[PIPO]

I found who it was

 

[crossover22[]_[]]

Use you brain fellas...

Another coaches wife?

 

[rsa coral gables]

That’s not true. For cause is really difficult

it depends on the facts. many times employees help you fire them for cause by doing stupid sh!!!t happens every day

maybe just maybe gattis f@@cked someone on staff and that was enough to fire him.

or he refused to recruit.

 

[JHallCanes]

Not gonna sit here and pretend this has been smooth sailing and everything is a-ok but what people are saying does make sense

Not ideal of course but also would put to rest some of the concerns people have brought up